Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3480 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4518 times:

Not to long ago I ask, what airliner burn three time less fuel than a 737. I should have ask what airliner burns three time less than a 777, since it is Boeing second biggest airliner. So now I am asking what airliner burns three times less fuel than a 777.

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4457 times:

In it's wieght and size category no such animal exists. If it did Boeing would not be able to give 777's away.

User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6772 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4448 times:

Three times less, meaning a third as much?

User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4448 times:

Why would I, John Q. Airline Owner, buy an aircraft, B777, if an aircraft of the same capabilities, was more fuel efficient by a factor of 3? I wouldn't. So, I'm going to take a stretch here and say: since multiple operators bought (and continue to buy) and operate the B777, there is no aircraft, in its class, that is 3 times more efficient. I know, it's a leap of faith, but I'm comfortable making it.


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6772 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4433 times:

We don't know whether he meant a third as much per seat. Maybe he just meant a third as much, period.

User currently offlineJetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3080 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4319 times:

Quoting Timz (Reply 4):
We don't know whether he meant a third as much per seat. Maybe he just meant a third as much, period.

Either way, I highly doubt there is any such airplane....or at least one with comprable abilities of the 777.


Chris



Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3480 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4302 times:

In any class of airliners.

User currently offlineN8076U From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 425 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4289 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Not to long ago I ask, what airliner burn three time less fuel than a 737

Perhaps a 737 burns 1/3 the fuel of a 777, give or take.  Wink



Don't blame me, I don't work here...
User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4267 times:

i'll bet a beech 1900 burns even less than 3 times that of a 777. what kind of question is that? be more specific. when comparing fuel burns you have to state the class of airplanes we are talking about here. are you talking about seat/mile, overall burn, what??

User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5414 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4261 times:

I have got to ask this: What is your original or native language 747400sp?
Because I strongly suspect it is not english.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Not to long ago I ask, what airliner burn three time less fuel than a 737. I should have ask what airliner burns three time less than a 777, since it is Boeing second biggest airliner. So now I am asking what airliner burns three times less fuel than a 777.

Don't get me wrong, I am not not mocking you or anything but your wording tends to be awkward and I think that is making it difficult to answer your question(s) properly.

I look at your profile and your flag which indicate that english is your native tongue but the way you phrase things in this and other posts sometimes makes it tough to discern what you are saying. If you are a "native" english speaker then you need to work on your posting language a bit to clarify your thoughts.

Again, I say this with all due respect, I am just curious.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4250 times:

Quoting Timz (Reply 2):
Three times less, meaning a third as much?



Quoting Tugger (Reply 9):

I would tend to agree.

747400sp: It would be wrong to expect everyone to speak perfect English but lots of us have been giving you friendly tips which you haven't even acknowledged.

""Thrust" and "a third as much" (not "three times less").  Smile


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5414 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4204 times:

As I was percolating on this question a related one came to me and I think it may be relevant what 747400sp is seeking.

How are thrust and fuel consumption related? Does an engine with three times as much trust consume three times as much fuel?

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3925 times:

More important, what would a competing aircrafts SFC be?

I've been trying to find out what RR's Trent XWB be for the A350-1000 but there is no information about it.......we know what GE's GE90-115B are...


The A350-1000XWB is according to paper, be a whopping 61 tons lower at MTOW...also...its going to seat only 15 people less in a 3-class configuration versus the 777-300ER...

If Airbus numbers will come out as what they claim, and the Trent XWB for the -1000 have lower SFC than the GE90-115B, then it will essentially kill sales of the -300ER..however,right now, I'm a bit skeptical about Airbus numbers.....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 12):
If Airbus numbers will come out as what they claim, and the Trent XWB for the -1000 have lower SFC than the GE90-115B, then it will essentially kill sales of the -300ER..however,right now, I'm a bit skeptical about Airbus numbers.....

Skeptical or not, Airbus would have to miss their targets by an astronomical unit to NOT kill off the 773ER, as an almost 15 year newer plane. Even if it works out to be 20t heavier than projected, and the SFC was the same...both of which would be a collosal failure, it would still be enough to virtually kill the 773ER as it stands. (Assuming no or small improvements.)

That said, the 773ER probably has almost 10 years of real market life left before the kill-off is complete. It's 2006, and EIS for the 350-1000XWB is far enough out that current 777 operators aren't going to wait that long when they can have it Now or Almost Now. It's the same reason the A330 isn't entirely dead yet even though there are two airplanes that are on the drawing boards that are dramatically superior in all ways. Airbus is happy to keep selling A330's to current customers and customers who can't wait for such late deliveries. (2010 or 2011 now for any kind of new 787 order, right?)



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3785 times:

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 13):
Skeptical or not, Airbus would have to miss their targets by an astronomical unit to NOT kill off the 773ER, as an almost 15 year newer plane. Even if it works out to be 20t heavier than projected, and the SFC was the same...both of which would be a collosal failure, it would still be enough to virtually kill the 773ER as it stands. (Assuming no or small improvements.)



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 12):
If Airbus numbers will come out as what they claim, and the Trent XWB for the -1000 have lower SFC than the GE90-115B, then it will essentially kill sales of the -300ER..however,right now, I'm a bit skeptical about Airbus numbers.....

I already stated those comments.. Wink


I'm just skeptical on Airbus hitting those numbers they have claimed...and Boeing have already stated they won't be taking this sitting down..Boeing will probably wait until re-offical launch of the A350-1000 to get a better handle of things

Anyway, as my original question is..what would the SFC of the Trent XWB's be for the A350-1000WXB....

cheers.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineTEAtheB From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3647 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 12):
I've been trying to find out what RR's Trent XWB be for the A350-1000 but there is no information about it.

I'm sure BOE773 will have a reliable figure.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting TEAtheB (Reply 15):

I'm sure BOE773 will have a reliable figure.

Sure, its not the reliability I'm curious about..but the comparison between the two.... Smile

Cheers.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3071 times:

747400sp's original question is curious. I don't believe that - as stated - it is possible to answer. His second post just made things worse, as some of you have noted. *Any* class of airliner? What - even a King Air?

There needs to be some clarity about what is being compared.

The aircraft's size? I reckon you could make a lightweight 777-sized hull
which, when completely empty, used around a 3rd of a 777's fuel. Wouldn't be good for much except hauling air around though.

The aircraft's mission? To haul x number of people or y pounds of cargo around and use a third of the fuel? Not with current technology. Might not even be possible, given the laws of thermodynamics.

Seems like manufacturers of hulls and motors are beating each other over the head with minor fuel savings because that's where the operators know they can save money, (apparently, deleting an olive from the 1st class salad isn't enough). But to save 2/3 on fuel on a given type is unlikely.



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airliners Burn Three Times Less Fuel Than A 777?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
RR Engines Burn More Fuel Than GE. posted Fri Jul 14 2006 01:01:14 by BOE773
An Airliner That Burn 3 Time Less Gas Than A 737 posted Wed Jun 21 2006 18:06:04 by 747400sp
AA Cleared To Carry Less Fuel posted Tue Jun 1 2004 20:02:39 by SolarWind
Fuel Burn Delta A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR posted Mon Feb 6 2006 16:21:33 by UAL747-600
777-200ER Fuel Burn Data posted Sat Oct 19 2002 13:42:13 by WIDEBODYPHOTOG
B773ER Fuel Burn Rates posted Fri Oct 13 2006 03:35:39 by AF022
DHC-8 Fuel Burn Question posted Tue Sep 26 2006 23:21:12 by Cruisertk421
Improving Fuel Burn With Spray Nozzle Direction? posted Sun Aug 27 2006 00:14:19 by Lehpron
B707 Fuel Burn Comparism posted Sun Aug 6 2006 23:25:27 by Sevenheavy
New Engines For Concorde - Fuel Burn / Range? posted Fri Jul 7 2006 23:36:55 by A342

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format